One of the most important reasons for a removable battery, is to be able to take it out of the phone in the event of getting the phone wet. There are other good reasons. It is an advantage to be able to do so. A premium phone will allow you to. One that compromises on design won't.
8 posts • joined 10 Oct 2008
DAB == FAIL.
DAB has, essentially, already failed. It is broadcast at too low a bit rate to appeal to Hi-Fi enthusiasts, and is too expensive (because essentially the UK is on it's own in using it...). As a format it is has little room to grow, and looks like a white elephant.
Someone should put it out of it's misery and pilot the UK towards adopting a newer high compression based format that the rest of the world actually uses. Something that can adequately replace FM, rather than being less compelling than it (from a quality audio perspective).
Woah there, hoss....
Strength and flexibility are not synonymous.
If something of the same material is more flexible, it is likely to be less strong. Different materials may have different characteristics, but are likely to have different drawbacks. For example, ceramic is very strong, but very brittle, whereas polythene is very flexible, but not very strong.
A flexible thing may bend and distort components underneath, causing damage. In comparison a harder thing may transfer shock into the case chassis, rather than through the components.
Or not, it depends on the design.
It may be that by design the ipad is indeed more resilient to damage, but that is not borne out by the contention of the article, which is misleading at best.
Thinner thing made of stuff, bends less than thicker thing made of stuff, is pretty scant material on which to base an article.
What this one said....
If you know that you want different partitions, you almost certainly know how to do it. If you want different partitions it's entirely possible that you might want these partitions spread over different types of drive (solid state or ramdisk, or RAID - mirrored, striped or a combination - for example), Filesystems (to put a NTFS partition to be mounted in both windows and linux for shared data, perhaps), or for a range of other reasons (operating system testing, virtual machine storage.....etc).
The author should get over himself and his parochial self interest, and realise that the least complex setup is almost certainly the correct choice for a default installation for an inexperienced user.
Stick everything where it is easy to find and learn from. Those of us with special needs can sort ourselves out, thanks.
Too little, too late?
Windows Phone 7, really who cares?
There was a time that HTC Windows Mobile phones were the power user smartphone of choice. Highly configurable, with loads of software, to achieve oodles of high end enterprise integration. Unfortunately the phone bits were never very good (in fact the Diamonds that I bought for our company were possibly the worst professional decision I've ever made in my career).
Windows mobile has been left trailing in the dust by the iphone and android in the consumer space and the better power management and resilience of the symbian communicators (E72 etc) and the integrated enterprise goodness of the blackberry's - despite nicking all the best hardware early from HTC.
So they've decided to make mobile 7 pretty like apple (we all know how they are likely to fare on that battleground), and reduce the high levels of configurability and customisation of the old windows mobile (about the best thing the platform had going for it).
For what? where will it sit in the marketplace? More expensive than android, but less flexible. A pretty competitor to iphone, but without the market share and fanbois.
I found wave useful too.....well, would have.....
....if it had worked properly and been more flexible. As a unified method of dealing with interactive collaboration it is quite spectacular. Being able to combine different media and to record the development of a wave and replay it has a number of applications for which a solution currently does not exist in the real world.
Imagine a bulletin/message board with waves for threads/topics. Subsequent contributors can add/amend/insert material in the relevant place, without having to quote previous posts and append it at the end. It could be mixed media...and anyone joining the discussion could play the thread to catch up. Of course to be able to do that it needed to be able to be hosted on ones own servers/hosting, to be integrated into a wrapper that is site specific, and to allow a diverse range of enhanced admin options (for example privileges for read/write/edit of existing waves and to be able to control who can publish new waves).
....but now think that you can use the same mechanism for private messages, public messages to people unregistered at the site, you can also use it as a collaboration environment for writing white papers or as a project management tool. Think of it as rtf for the internet age.
Google indicated that this would be possible, and tried to get developers on board to work towards such integration. Why didn't it happen? Well it partly did, it's just that the technology is immature, the feature set outside the google hosted wave servers substandard, and the google hosted waves lacked the community (of either developers or users) to gain momentum.
Wave isn't a fail, though. Get the technology right, integrate it into specific applications, and distribute freely in a truly non-proprietary way, and I still believe it's a game changer.
The question is, who pays?
It's an Apple Newton moment. Absolutely brilliant idea, but fundamentally unusable in its current form. Look forward ten years, and the showcased concepts behind it will be ubiquitous.
One size fits all ERP against integrated specific tools.
I think the view that is expressed in this article is interesting, but then I would do because in practice I reached a similar conclusion.
For my MBA dissertation it was my intention to do a case study on the implementation of ERP within my organisation. This plan was somewhat compromised as in the process of that implementation, and after a change in emphasis within the various business units that compromise our organisation, a decision was made to use specific dedicated tools that communicated across the functions, rather than integrated them into a whole.
From an implementation point of view, particularly from an IT perspective, it is 'easier' to deploy one comprehensive system. However the ability to find one system that is a good fit for all practices and operations within a diverse organisation is challenging. It often means compromise, customisation and alteration of existing processes. This can undermine the advantages of an integrated system making it cumbersome, inflexible, and hard to maintain. It is also likely that overall cost of purchase and deployment will be high.
Choosing small dedicated tools for specific processes means that a better fit for individual work processes can be found. This allows more 'out of the box' solutions, making maintenance and upgrades easier, as well as no one failure rendering all business functions inoperable. It also allows more readily for change within autonomous business units or processes. The additional effort required is in getting the diverse tools passing necessary information required across processes.
From an IT perspective it requires a more complex infrastructure, nevertheless I think it can benefit the performance of the business.
It might not have been the intended focus of my dissertation, but you may be relieved to know (as was I) that this conclusion at least allowed me to satisfactorily pass my degree.
Clearly it isn't the correct approach for everyone, but it certainly should be considered. The managers in our business units are happier, and have bought into the process more - quite simply because the business software they use is of their choice rather than an imposition from elsewhere. Unfortunately it's more onerous for me, but you don't run a business to please the IT function any more than you should rely on accountants for innovation.
Ideal as a Media Director for LinuxMCE?
I've been looking for a small quiet pc that I can mount behind a monitor to use as a portable computer/media centre for display at various locations around my automated home. Initially it seemed that the lack of 1080p would be the only significant stumbling block for this machine. It seems, however, that the LinuxMCE (my solution of choice to integrate media services and home automation) people have it running 1080p comfortably.
If could buy this cheaper, without XP or a hard drive, it would be perfect.